Features » April 26, 2005

Numbers Before Politics

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Since last autumn’s Republican victory, progressives have engaged in considerable soul searching. The most basic question has been: Why do so many people support conservative policies that hurt them? For an important subset of these policies, the answer is simple: They don’t know the numbers.

Public opinion polls consistently show that people hugely overestimate the portion of public spending that goes to programs like welfare or foreign aid. For example, a Kaiser poll from the mid-’90s found that 40 percent of respondents ranked welfare as one of the two largest items in the federal budget, and 40 percent put foreign aid in this category. At the time, the two largest items in the federal budget were Social Security at 22 percent and military spending at 18 percent. The share of the budget going to Aid for Families with Dependent Children, the core welfare program, was less than 1 percent. Adding in food stamps, housing subsidies and other low-income programs could push this figure close to 4 percent. Less than 0.5 percent of the budget went for anything remotely resembling foreign aid.

The extent of this misinformation is important. If a person believes that 25 percent of the budget is already going to welfare, then she is likely to have a very different attitude toward further spending than if she knew the real numbers. She would believe that welfare spending is already imposing a substantial tax burden—one that must have a real effect on the living standards of many middle income families.

Furthermore, any reasonable person who believes that such a large portion of the federal budget is already going to welfare might also wonder how incremental increases in this spending would have any real effect. In other words, if the United States has made so little progress in alleviating poverty after spending so much, why would another $2 billion for child care or $800 million for housing subsidies make a difference? Alternatively, if massive spending has little impact, how much harm could be caused by modest cutbacks, or a “slower rate of growth,” as the Bush administration would frame the issue.

Given the fundamental ignorance about the scale of these social programs, it is remarkable that they enjoy as much support as they do.

Such grossly distorted views of the budget are not inevitable. Part of the problem may be attributable to ideology. For example, some people may simply want to believe that welfare programs take up the bulk of the budget regardless of the facts. Part of the confusion is also attributable to right-wing politicians who foster such misconceptions. Ronald Reagan used to talk about the pain felt by hardworking families who had to pay for their groceries while seeing lazy welfare cheats in front of them in the checkout line, buying expensive cuts of meat with food stamps. But the main reason for public ignorance on the size of social program spending is simply how the media reports budget numbers.

For example, when the New York Times discussed the political battle over the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bill last summer, it reported that the current budget provided $16.5 billion dollars for TANF. This number provided almost no information whatsoever. Only a small group of wonks is sufficiently familiar with the budget to recognize the significance of this level of spending. For the vast majority of people, $16 billion is simply a very large number, as would be $160 billion or even $1.6 billion. The problem is made worse when stories present budget numbers that refer to 5- or 10-year totals, often without even making this fact clear.

Reporting on the budget in ways that actually convey information is not rocket science. The most obvious way is to simply express spending and tax items as a share of the total budget. For example, the $16 billion TANF bill can be described as 0.6 percent of federal spending; the $5 billion foreign aid appropriation can be referred to as 0.2 percent of federal spending. This would immediately inform readers and listeners of the context and relative importance of this item in the budget.

Essentially, this is just a question of good journalism. News stories about the budget should provide as much perspective as possible. These topics cannot justifiably be approached in any other way. As Daniel Okrent, the public editor of the New York Times, wrote in a recent column,“numbers without context, especially large ones with many zeros trailing behind, are about as intelligible as vowels without consonants.”

In short, a simple, and winnable, agenda item for progressives should be to convince media outlets to practice good journalism when they cover national or state budgets. All but the most closed-minded editors and producers should be open to the argument that the goal of budget reporting is to convey information.

Haggling over the way in which budget numbers are reported may seem like a rather indirect approach—- to increasing public funding for child care or nutrition programs. But sustaining public support for any social spending will always be an uphill struggle as long as the public is so hugely misinformed.

Progressives will have to confront many other important questions on framing and values, but this is a simple question of getting the numbers right. And here the battle lines are not drawn between left and right, but between honest and dishonest.

What do you want to see from our coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates?

As our editorial team maps our plan for how to cover the 2020 Democratic primary, we want to hear from you:

It only takes a minute to answer this short, three-question survey, but your input will help shape our coverage for months to come. That’s why we want to make sure you have a chance to share your thoughts.

Rick,
I don't feel I dodged your question. I answered it in a realistic and pragmatic context. The big "IF" scenario you proposed in quite a red herring.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that what you proposed was based in reality and could actually happen (ie that a president could actually "have a credible plan" to ban abortion...which I don't think is realistic since it depends on so much more than just him....more so than other types of budgetary and FISCAL legislation).
I think, in that scenario, that he would win. Enough conservatives, epecially populist social conservatives (who don't really have a party IMHO)would vote for him, along with the more conservative and moderate parts of the democratic base to propel him to victory. I think, realistically, that that margin would depend on the platform of the GOP candidate.
Now, back in reality, once elected, his populist agenda would get overwhelming public support and his "plan" to ban abortion would bog down and many who voted for him would turn against him...again KINDA LIKE the SS debate. Many people who voted for Bush are against his SS ideas, which, mind you, are easier to accomplish than a CONSTITUIONAL AMENDEMENT banning abortion. They are 2 totally different animals. Even though I may vote for him, I will be against that proposal when it comes along.Posted by John on 2005-05-06 10:56:50

Respectfully suggest conversation get off same
boring, overindulgent liberal conservative line,
as if those two views exhaust all the options.
Unless you abolish Pentagon and privatize social
security no money for current much less new social
programs, not American but follow your scene closely as we have much invested in same.
Americans not going to pay for bigger welfare
programs even if middle class benefit.
Abortion outlawed with new advances in fetal life
continuing. Demo morons be jumping on euthansia
bandwagon thinking Schiavo new Roe v Wade for
Kevorkian movement. Think maybe they be jumping
on longrange hearse instead.
Medicare wrecking social security as predicted by
rightists in 1965.
Only way eliminate poverty be work.Posted by Lin Biao on 2005-05-06 10:13:24

John,
Sorry for the delay - I was sick.
I hate to say it, but it feels like you are dodging answering my question. Since I'm probably just being unclear, let me be plain. If a Democratic candidate appeared that had a clear, credible plan that could demonstrably eradicate poverty in America (i.e., the poor and working poor would be 'uplifted' to the middle class as far as benefits, standard of living, health care, etc.), and eliminate abortion except when the mother's life was in danger I believe two things would happen. First, conservatives would back him - after all, abortion is a high priority and eliminating poverty is pretty close behind. Second, liberals *wouldn't* - abortion would trump all of their 'economic' goals.
Comments?Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-05-06 04:18:20

Rick,
well, technically you're right. a president can't do any of those things. However, he puts forth a budget every year and is much more active getting results in areas like taxes, budget priorities, health care legislation and foreign policy.
Things like abortion and gay marriage are much more subtle and complicated because they involve the consitution, amendments, state votes and other factors...not to mention he'll have to get some cooperation from his own party which he probably wouldn't. Look, on a realistic note, the GOP has had the presidency 17 of the last 25 years, the supreme court edge for much of the same time, the house for the last 10 years and senate for the last 3 and nothing has changed on those hot button social issues. You can't keep adding "ifs". It's too sketchy so don't bother.
As far as getting the party's blessing...who knows. I can say that the GOP isn't really all that behind Bush on his SS ideas but that didn't stop them from supporting him.Posted by John on 2005-05-04 17:47:04

Well, a President can't do *any* of those things, really. Taxes, tariffs, etc. are all legislation. But the Prez sets the tone. Let's say the Republicans back him over the abortion/borders/bedmates issues. Would the Democrats? Would Margaret?Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-05-04 13:38:05

Definition of trolling: When someone raise another
viewpoint that the Margarets and Merlins can't
deal so we as good Stalinists censor them rather
than deal with their arguments which happen to be
superior to ours. We and only we decide what is
respectable opposition, i.e., opposition that does
not oppose our basic premises which built on house
of sand & sewage subject to instant collapse.Posted by Lin Biao on 2005-05-04 08:14:00

Hi Everyone,
Thanks to Merlin and Margaret especially for answering my question about trolling.Posted by Louis Rue on 2005-05-04 07:58:02

Rick,
I may vote for him. Depends who else is on the table. however, you wrote this:
He’s also staunchly pro-life and will ban all abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk. He will quintuple the border patrol and fiercely oppose illegal immigrants. And he will pass a constitutional amendment making gay marriage impossible.
He can't do all that. Border patrol he could. but the other two are out of his reach. The Prez. can not DO those things.Posted by John on 2005-05-04 07:44:01

Would anyone? Would anyone even have the chance to vote for him? He would never get the backing of either party.Posted by Cal on 2005-05-04 05:22:15

OK, my turn to have a long post gobbled!!
AHHHHHHHH.
I'll try again
For both liberals and conservatives there are issues seen as more important than economics. Conservatives have proven adept and recognizing, understanding, and co-opting these issues for liberals. Liberals have failed to do the same in return. That's it, that's my point. Your comment that 'IMO there are more important issues than abortion' (a paraphrase) *IS* my point. Of course you think so. If you didn't, you would be a conservative.
But here is a question - let's say that the next governor of (random point to map) South Dakota is really, really great and a Dem. He has an awesome reputation, solid background, and really turns South Dakota around. Excellent foreign policy ideas, friends with leaders around the world, and the respect of world leaders. He runs for President on a platform that has precise, detailed numbers on how to prune defense spending so that the military stays tough, strong, and flexible but no pork + modernization frees up 50% of the current DoD bydget.
He plans to use that to institute a national health care plan that will be regionally managed and comprehensive, eliminate *all* taxes for the poor and 'working poor', and increase unemployment benefits to include detailed retraining. Oh, and he will use tariffs on trade with human-rights violating nations, an increase in taxes on the riches 1% of the nation, and a closure of the capital gains tax loopholes to fund Social Security to ensure its solveny for 400 years with 110% of current benefits.
He's also staunchly pro-life and will ban all abortion unless the mother's life is at risk. He will quintuple the border patrol and fiercely oppose illegal immigrants. And he will pass a constitutional amendment making gay marriage impossible.
Would you vote for him? Would he get the Democratic Party's blessing?Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-05-04 01:20:34

bumpPosted by John on 2005-05-03 15:42:41

Rick, (continued)
As for conservative issues concerning fiscal and tax issues, well, this brings me back to my original post to you. The reasons for concern are either too broad or too narrow in my opinion.
How do you propose to address your education concern? Does it really sound practical to opt in or out of paying school taxes? Those with the means can send their kids to private school. Those that can't or choose not to rely on public schools. I doubt a majority of conservatives in middle america would support such a idea anyway. I won't touch taxes paying for abortions. I have no answer for it though I don't know how often it happens. EVERY person I've ever met paid for their own. I'm sure there are exceptions but, again, we're talking about a vote that covers all issues. Not gonna happen. I don't want my taxes going to subsidize Oil/Gas Industries when we should be funding research in alternative energy and better fuel efficiency technologies. I'll say my preference matters more to more people, redirects a huge chunk of the budget (more than welfare) and has farther reaching benefits on the economy, environment and FOREIGN POLICY. Just my opinion.
Again on socio-economic tax issues like welfare, as we've seen in this article, the strong argument is there that we've done very little...miniscule compared to how much goes to other areas like defense PORK and corportate welfare. I'd love the day when the media has the nerve to redirect public attention on how intertwined GOP-backing corporate interests affect tax laws and budget allocations. Access buys influence. That should be a top concern for all americans. If DC worked as much for us as they do for coroportate lobbies, we'd all be happier. By the way, you're never going to see more resources allocated back to the middle-class with the current conservatives in power. Remember access buys influence. Have a look at David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal". It shows how our horrible tax code, constantly tweaked by powerful interets, pushes real burdens down on the middle class. But in particular, it shows how a corrupt tax code allows the top 1% to burden the rest of the top 20% the most. These are my main concerns in taxes and fiscal policy.
Nanny government is a false choice. I think rather in terms of Good Government. Communities do do work for the poor. But like this article shows, if people realized how little actually is done at a federal level, they might be more sympathetic to bigger allocations. As for bureacracy, everything is a bureaucracy in DC...even the military. A not so smart conservative I know once said Dems are Bureaucrats while insinuating that Republican politicans were something else. whatever. It's a poorly used word. Bureaucracy does a lot of things that we take for granted like SS and at a cost of less than 1% of total allocations. The whole idea pushing private charities to replace government for social problems is not a well founded one and sounds like an excuse to cut the budget and naively think that people will in turn save on taxes. Remember welfare is peanuts compared to other ways of saving money and cutting down on governemnt spending.Posted by John on 2005-05-03 15:16:16

Rick, (again) I'll go shorter this time. I'm totally blank on a lot of what I wrote last time.
If conservatives are concerned about fiscal issues as well as social ones, then how do you conservative reconcile their votes, knowing full well that after election day, their social concerns will go by the wayside, while fiscal policy (the real deal), will go counter to their interests. You claim to fiscally more liberal. Well, you're the exception, my friend...not because you are but because you ADMIT. Many studies show a consistent result: regardless of self-ascribed ideology, a controlling majority of Americans are generally progressive and populist on fiscal policy. Though social issues are more complex, the general public is more moderate than perhaps either platform is. See www.pipa.org for a great study on budget priorites as perceived by the public. But there is difference. The progressive base sees a valid connection between how fiscal policy affects social conditions and all problems stemming from these conditions. I don't think it is faulty to think that progressive policies that protect and strengthen the middle-class have a positive effect on social conditions...be they crime, education, poverty or even ABORTION.
You spoke about abortion. My take on abortion is that it should be "safe, legal and rare" as Clinton said. You can't fix a leaky roof by stopping the rain. The way the GOP handles sex-ed and ideas of contraceptives doesn't help stem abortions.
Again on judges, you seem to make more of them than I do. I think, by and large, the judiciary does it's job just fine...much better than the other 2 branches. I sense than outrage on the judiciary of late is misguided. It seems that extreme cases either mischaracterized or blurred into generalizations. There are more conservative judges on the federal courts than liberals. Either way, interpreting the constitution, is what they do and in general do it quite...even the conservatives.
Liberals don't underestimate the power of abortion. They simply feel, myself included, that you just can't make it illegal. we must do our best to minimize its use through education and pragmatic policies. The problem is perception. When confronted with a GOP base that has a "NO WAY, NO HOW" attitude, it's hard to get past a full defense mode just to keep it legal. Anyone would be willing to enact policies that cut down on abortions by stopping unwanted pregnancy. That's the best way, IMO. Safe, legal and rare.
While we're on that point, other issues SHOULD matter more than wiping out abortion, IMO. Congress and the Prez are at work everyday with real matters that effect us everyday. Again, fiscal policy has a real effect on social outcomes. Voting on abortion at the expense of other issues that indirectly affect the line at the abortion clinic is simply not prudent in my opinion. Talk of concern for fiscal issues as "key" rings hallow in this respect.Posted by John on 2005-05-03 14:46:01

John,
Happened to me on another thread - take your time and you have my sympathy!Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-05-03 13:14:50

Rick,
I just lost my lengthy response when when I hit the submit button. I'm too disgusted. I'll answer later...sorry.Posted by John on 2005-05-03 12:05:17

This has been one of the best threads I have read in a long time. I appreciate the debate minus the talking over (not listening just speaking) that is very prevalent in this country. Thank you.Posted by Tracey on 2005-05-03 11:11:08

a little more...
Take my comments on the entire 'conservatives vote against their own best interests' argument and apply it very broadly - I oppose a "nanny government" in all its forms. we think care for those who need it must come from the community, not a bureaucracy. The embrace of 'faith-based initiatives' by the Right is because the Right already particpates in these plans (using or running them) and know how effective they are.
Thanks again for the dialog.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-05-02 15:06:07

John,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your obvious thought and passion and it honestly means a lot to me to be engaged with actual concern and effort.
I am in total agreement - all politicians talk mainly about social issues and vote mainly about fiscal issues (or cast fiscal issues as social ones). But conservatives are concerned about fiscal issues as much as social ones, so this may be beside the point.
As for acticist judges, many conservatives feel that successes at the ballot box and in the legislature are erased by judges that simply decide that laws are invalid or create laws from thin air. Witness the various judicial decisions that either invalidate legislation that was overwhelmingly popular, voter referendums that won in landslides, or actually create legislation by fiat - homosexual marriage just being the most visible issue. In a few cases judges have invalidated state constitutions and legislation with a single opinion and then strike down any attempts by the legislature to create laws requested by voters. This use of jusicial power to "trump" legislative power smacks of a violation of the separation of powers and angers many.
And as far as most judges being conservative or moderate - we obviously see this very differently! Being for 'smaller government' or claiming to be conservative do not make you a conservative. Jessie Ventura and Arnold claim to be conservative based upon their fiscal policy but are openly liberal on social issues; the majority of self-described conservatives in my sphere (which is largely conservative Catholic) see this as the opposite of our desires; the majority of my 'fellow travelers' are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Anti-libertarians, if you like. For example, my wife and I think WIC is a good program, but many of the trappings of WIC are problemmatic to me from a social viewpoint (some of the restrictions on purchases remove health and nutrition decisions from the mother and the growth charts make it likely that breast feeding moms will face intervention by social workers).
See, conervatives don't think abortion is a "closed issue". We believe that the legal opinion was flawed and the implementation is lousy. In my own beliefs the Republicans have done more to restrict abortion in the last 6 or so years than ever before and the policies I don't like are a small price to pay for those restrictions beng put in place. Liberals have *ALWAYS* underestimated the critical nature of opposition to abortion and the level of moral outrage that drives that opposition. I know people who work all day in soup kitchens that say they will focus on the poor once abortion is stopped. To a majority of conservatives other issues pale compared to abortion. As one person I know stated "they spend oney on feeding children, education children, and killing them before they need either".
No, it isn't about patriarchal values, or oppressing women, or imposing our beliefs on everyone - it is about life and death to us. Preventing 5 abortions is worth a reduction in arts programs in public schools across the country, no question.
I *agree* with your statement that the critical issue is where taxes come from and where they go. That is the key concern of all conservatives and liberals, in my own opinion. And the key difference between them. Conservative want to chose where to spend their tax money to educate their children. They do not want their taxes paying for abortions. They think that the way welfare monies are distributed impose a burden on the poor that makes social issues worse. They think the best "allocation of resources" for the middle-class is to tax them less and let *them* allocate their *own* resources.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-05-02 15:05:34

Rick,
one last point. Many of the cultural gripes are the result of free enterprise. If there is money to be made, people will sell it. I think it's more prudent to strengthen the middle-class through better allocation of resources. I have faith in people. When more families are able to provide for their children and raise them properly through more time spend at home instead of working longer and longer hours, social problems will decrease. It's not a coincidence that poorer struggling families in bad areas have more more social problems, crime and children prone to repeating these problems. Layin down the whip on people whose lives suck isn't going to solve the problem.Posted by John on 2005-05-02 10:32:52

Rick,
thanks for your response. In answer to your question on what I think the larger point is, I say this:
If you look at congressional voting records and at what Bush's main goals are, they're all about fiscal policy. Vague cultural grievances make for good red meat during a campaign but have little or nothing to do with DC's daily routine. It pains many of us to see people vote Republican bcause their concerned with society's moral fabric based on what's on TV, what films are out or how their kids dress or who lives with whom or whatever else gets people grumbling at that kitchen table. They advertise vanilla and give you tin roof sundae.
I think social conservatives make too much of "activist judges". The majority of appointees are conservatives or moderates. I feel like abortion (decided 32 years ago) is the fuel that drives a vague generalization of the courts to this day. Keep in mind for instance that the judicial stories recently concerning Schiavo and that judges family were about conservative judges doing their job. I just don't see it.
As far as taxation and government spending are concerned, well, that's a laugher. the whole notion of "small government" is an illusion, an unattainable ideal and non-issue. Governments have to spend money and people have to pay taxes no matter who's in charge. Besides, both sides take issue with that. It's all a matter of what it's really spent on. Take this article for example.
In the end I guess, being socially conservative or liberal is like being a cat person or a dog person, liking Chevy or Ford, liking wine or liking beer, coke or pepsi, Levis or Gap brand: in other words, it shouldn't be a basis for a vote.
People should instead look at WHERE tax money comes from, HOW it is spent, WHO writes these laws, WHO funds campaigns and WHO benefits most from it all. The WHO here is also the driving force behind the smoke and mirror, bait and switch campaign that gets people voting on social gripes rather than looking at some interesting stats like in this article.Posted by John on 2005-05-02 10:03:06

Rick,
Sorry for the delay responding. Your response to my question about the way the media is now set up, "Are you objective? Are you well informed? How? If “the media” is slewed so that no one can get the truth, how did you get it? Or don’t you think you have it?" is interesting. And certainly worthy of discussion, but not really an answer to the question. But that may be my fault. Let me try again.
You would agree, I think, that businesses in our capitalistic society are driven first and foremost by the bottom line, i.e., profit and that the goal of a news organization (in broad terms) is to disseminate the news in an objective and fair manner. My concern is that these two goals can run into conflict. And when they do, profit tends to trump. The larger the news organization, the more money is at stake, the more likely profit wins. This does not best-serve the public good. How can you or I be sure the news we see and hear is accurate? Perhaps more importantly, how can we be sure stories are not being dropped because they are not 'profitable' enough or may reflect badly on the groups or people who could help in generating more profit for the company? This is not a left or right issue either - simply an issue of truth. I don't claim to have the solution, either. But unless both sides agree to the question, that there is a question, the problem, as I see it, won't be addressed.Posted by tomkin on 2005-05-02 06:50:47

Forgive my typos.I was trying to finish this
before my classes started.Posted by wwoods on 2005-05-02 05:30:46

Thanks for giving those troglodytes a name.Unfortunately.I associate fishing with trolling.Sounds like something involving a search engine.
Trolling,though.Margaret,remind you of anyone we know?.
Actually,I don't know,in many cases,if they're noisy just for the sake of being noisy.I think that many of them are decent people who've been horribly deceived by the far right.Still the immature act of tying up a website a (E-vandalism?E-vandalists?)would be true to the Re-party's character.They tend to behave and reason at about a seventh-grade level.
I can't call this faction of right wing behavior conservativatism or even republican.Really,it's neither.That's why I call them the Re-party and their followers re-partisans.I think it's far more descriptive.Reactionary,repressive,repugnant,etc.
Unfortunately,Re-partians do not know how to argue.Too much reactionary media,I suspect.Also I've noticed they have no memory of history.What the party says is true is reality.So Orwellian.
As a result left-wing,or even centrist,sites are bombarded with yahoos who believe that Reagan won the cold war,even though the Soviets said he didn't make much of a difference(hastened the fall ofcommunism by a week)and that giving money to the rich will benefit our economy when we've tried it before and it didn't work.
What I find amazing about their political philosophy are two things.First is the intensity of their beliefs,their absolute certainty they are right.Second is their unison in thinking.Astounding.
Frankly,It's a good thing their around.Let's you know what they're up to and what sort of propaganda they're dispensing or swallowing.Posted by wwoods on 2005-05-02 05:26:40

John,
I am *not* being disingenuous, but what do *you* think the larger point is? While you state in your posting that we cannot legislate social and cultural issues, many conservatives would disagree strongly and, as a matter of fact, argue that they are acting as they do to respond to the imposition of cultural and social change through legislation and (more critically) judicial action.
To your core question, which seems to be 'what economic reasons prompt conservatives', that would be a dislike of taxation and governmental spending. Yes, the majority of conservatives are very well aware that higher income Americans received proportionally greater tax breaks than poorer Americans - this is not news to conservatives. And it doesn't matter. The majority of conservatives dislike gradiated tax plans anyway
As far as votes for Bush being well-placed, that's tougher. Many conservatives are in the same boat as many liberals - they vote what what is perceived as a lesser evil. I will be honest; Bush is nowhere *near* as conservative as I would prefer. And I really disagree with a number of his policies (such as the way the Iraq war was promoted, planned, executed, etc). This may just be the people I associate with, but we are mainly socially conservative and fiscally liberal (the opposite of Arnold and Jessie) and we feel that no one really represents us in government.
While the rallying cry of the DNC last time was 'anyone but Bush' the mirror image is often 'anyone but a Democrat'. And Clinton proved that can be overcome.
I've wandered a bit, and I apologize, but I am searching for a way to explain something I haven't considered too carefully, myself. I appreciate the tough question.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-05-02 01:25:11

Louis,
Trolling is when someone of an opposite viewpoint, generally speaking, comes onto a site and attempts to disrupt the flow of conversation by various means. They may result to name-calling, throwing out questions that one would have to do a little time getting the data off the internet to prove your point, changing the entire subject in play, etc. Then, no more how many facts you can show them to disprove or neutralize their argument, they always say your data is unsubstantiated or plain wrong. You can tell them the sky is blue, and they will argue with you.
No one minds have cross-viewpoint discussions, but there are two problems with that:
1. Most people who come on this site are not satified with current state of affairs politically and are looking to find info not found on mainstream media, also gleaning info from other bloggers. This is a good resource to use when you have to debate w/opposite viewpoints on the street, at work, etc. So, this is often a fact-finding site for people who want to begin to take some sort of action against the current Administration.
2. Generally, opposite viewpoints who come in are disingenuous in the attempt to begin discussions. Some are sincere, and there is no problem. Everyone can disagree and go on. But trollers just come to create chaos and make sure no one learns anything that can be used against their viewpoint in real life. They are rude, they sometimes swear, they interrupt, they refuse any reasonable data. And then they smuggly gloat online about "how superior" they are.
I hope this helps.Posted by Margaret on 2005-05-01 15:35:06

Hi Louis,
Hi Louis,
You asked:
What the hell is trolling?
Check out:
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/internet_troll
There is a pretty complete explanation/definition of troll there. Trolls appear in many forms, the only possibly positive one is playing Devil's Advocate. Here at least people get the benefit of an opposing argument.
However, I oppose dishonesty in posting, an so don't like this "positive" take on playing Devil's Advocate. If, however, the person announces he is taking that position then the benefit is good as we, the unknowing, aren't being played for fools.Posted by Merlin on 2005-05-01 15:33:15

Rick,
as a follow up to my question, please leave out things that are common ground and do not "belong" to one side or the other.Posted by John on 2005-05-01 09:57:56

Rick Stump,
I've enjoyed reading your exchanges. It's interesting to get that perspective. The one gripe I have though is this and I'd like you to explain:
When liberals say conservatives "vote against their best interests", you do an admirable job showing how that argument, based on a point of view, can work in reverse and ultimately hurt liberal causes. Fine.
Here's my question: Nevermind vague social and cultural grievances that you can't legislate for a moment. You know what I mean so just let that go. What do you see in the Bush (and maybe the general far-right agenda) that gives conservatives (ie half the country) assurance that their votes are well-placed? This article is but one of many that shows a factual problem with "feeling" and perspective of conservatives. My larger question though is this:
Based soley on what congress does on a day to day basis (which is mainly matters of MONEY) what is it that you (and perhaps many others) feel the need to uphold with a Republican vote? I hope you don't play with semantics. Please address the larger point. Thanks. Peace.Posted by John on 2005-05-01 09:39:15

Merlin,
I too want to thank you for recomending museletter. There is a most interesting review of Diamond's book Collapse there.Posted by Joseph on 2005-05-01 09:06:53

What the hell is trolling?Posted by Louis Rue on 2005-05-01 08:48:39

This is an excellent article because it outlines how progressives can help to infuse some reality into the debate. We know very well that with the current administration we are dealing with the most adept propaganda machine since Goebbels and with the right-wing media whores and lunatic bloggers cheering them on they have been able to frame every debate outside of reality. One of the better examples is that when WMD in Iraq was shown to be a false claim, it did'nt matter because now we are there "to bring democracy" (big lie). When reality doesn't suit the political agenda, just change peoples' perception of reality, rerwrite history to serve the agenda.
I didn't know how small a share of our total federal budget was spent on "foriegn aid" but I have read that it is a smaller share than all the other affluent industrial nations of the west and also that most of it is in the form of loans and often for projects that benefit contractors and bannkers (American and native) far more than the poor of the nations recieving aid. Someone made the point of how much more goes to corporate welfare than social welfare here in our own country and this is exactly the kind of thing that we need to make better known. By encouraging accuracy in media we can frame debates in terms of truth rather than political ideology. This can only be helpfull since the right has already created such an inaccurate view of the left in so many peoples' minds.Posted by Louis Rue on 2005-05-01 08:44:48

One cannot possibly have direct, logical, rational action when the mainstream media is simply a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. We have recently seen a little progress toward a more fair representation in the Terri Schiavo, Iraq and Social Security issues. The media picked up on the polls that showed miniscule support for the Sciavo issue and Social Security, and recently the press has been openly questioning our plans in Iraq.
If this trend continues and the conservative media starts to report news instead of one-sided opinion again, we may have a chance of stopping the neocon madness.
By the way, I spoke with the Webmaster for ITT today. He informs me that a stricter anti-trolling policy will be initiated within the next two weeks or so. Hooray!Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-30 10:08:32

Merlin,
Thank you for mentioning "museletter.com".Posted by Jamessonofabreweryworker on 2005-04-30 06:36:07

mike,
I know this will be unpopular, but - fearmongering is alive and well on the Left, too. As much as I hear about Rove/Bush/etc. and a 'campaign of fear' that stampeded the ignorant into voting Republican, I hear just as much that voting Republican is so very wrong because the world is about to end, don't people realize!!!?!???!?!
There is no real evidence that the environment is in collapse, that food supplies are inadequate, etc. Doom and gloom cannot keep us from engaging in direct, logical, rational action.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-04-29 19:17:47

Hi Mike and Joseph,
Check out Richard Heinberg's "MuseLetter." He does present his version of answers along with with his pessimistic view. Go to "museletter.com"Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-29 14:27:19

Crossing the Rubicon.
I dont know who posted this but it is an important point. It seems to me that we are dangerously near to the point that no matter what we do or "jibber jabber" about it will make no difference. We will have so impacted the global environment that our species will not be able to survive. To avoid this it would require that we humans some how learn to relate to each other in different ways and to recognize one another as brothers and sisters worthy of concern and compassionate engagement. This is what would be required to save us from extinction. I am skeptical that this will be possible and it makes me sad. I wonder if you might have some idea about how we might pull back from the void of inevitable extinction.
JosephPosted by Joseph on 2005-04-29 14:05:43

There are more and more people in the world,and less and less food ,water,and oil to go around.And no indication that this is going to change any time soon.Have we crossed the Rubicon?If so, then all this jibber jabber is moot!Posted by mike on 2005-04-29 12:55:57

Tomkin,
Are you objective? Are you well informed? How?
If "the media" is slewed so that no one can get the truth, how did you get it? Or don't you think you have it?Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-04-29 12:54:51

Rick,
Your wrote, "I am pointing out that attempting to influence people you don’t understand is to doom yourself to disappointment." On that we surely agree. And what of my other point, that the media as currently set up cannot, by its very nature, be objective?
Michael,
While I can't argue that the Bush et al are in power, I think the debate as to whether we lost is still open, if for no other reason than the difference of votes was so small and the possible discrepancies so large. Still, I get your point, time to move on and learn from our mistakes. But I don't think copying the methods of Rove, as you imply, is an option. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but lying and cheating our way to the top is not an option I'm willing to explore.Posted by tomkin on 2005-04-29 12:12:45

Rick et.al. This has been a very interesting thread, but in the final analysis, WE LOST. It wasn't about truth or even accuracy, nor about good or bad. Bush morphed himself into a defiant "war" president--the critics be damned, particularly when they were "right." The Dems, simultaneously, became a right-centrist "anti" party that alienated much of its traditional electoral base. What's interesting for me is the abundant political genius of Carl Rove and other party functionaries. They understood after the 2000 election that "self-interests" are what the voters determine them to be at the polls. Lying, cheating, deception and duplicity only matter when you lose, for the winners rewrite history. Let's learn from it, and let's get over it.Posted by Michael on 2005-04-29 09:06:22

Tomkin,
Glad you pointed that out. No, I'm not saying that the different viewpoints are equally valid. I am pointing out that attempting to influence people you don't understand is to doom yourself to disappointment. I see a lot of that going on these days.
Joseph,
You fail to actually address the real issue. How about environmental activists that bomb worksites, plant metal in trees to cause power tools to maim or kill workers, poison hunting dogs, burn down ski resorts, etc.? They are liberals breaking the law to force their views on others and, like abortion extremists, they are disowned by law-abiding citizens.
You seem to think that a religious belief cannot influence someone's political actions (I may be wrong, but that is what I inferred). This is a dangerous idea, the concept that some ideas and motives are forbidden or unworthy because of who holds them or why.
Let me put it another way. The earliest abolitionists and the crusaders of the Civil Rights movement a century later were almost all motivated by their religious beliefs and freely explained that their political actions were based upon their religious faith. Should *they* have been denied access to the political process as you would deny access to those you *don't* like?
Please, I am not trying to distort your words, I am trying to have a discussion. for example, I listed a number of the legitimate reasons you asked for - no comment from you. And you did not actually address my point, you just said i misrepresented you - what did you mean for me to gain?Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-04-29 08:58:20

Rick,
Last I checked it was not the pro-choice folks that were bombing clinics, assasinating physicians, threatening judges, and posting peoples addresses and names on internet sites that were hit lists.
Thanks for displaying so beautifully what I was talking about, including misrepresenting what I said pretty clearly. Bush and his crew of loonies have worked this approach up to a high art but sooner than you probably think the working class and most of the middle classes will get hip to it and...well we will see.
JosephPosted by Joseph on 2005-04-29 08:42:50

I do appreciate your perspective though. We on the left often do dismiss the other side as either ignorant or foolish. We shouldn’t assume they are foolish. They are not. But I do believe they are, on more than a few issues anyway, ignorant. Not because they choose to be or because they don’t read or are educated, but because the system as a whole is skewed. If your primary source of information about Bush and his policies is the media, then how can you make an objective decision if the information the majority of the media provide, by definition, cannot be consistently objective?Posted by tomkin on 2005-04-29 08:40:40

Rick,
You are more than a little right to point out that, "They [conservatives] are people just like you." It seems obvious, but it is often overlooked, by both sides in fact. And you are also right to point out that there are bonafide reasons why so many people voted for Bush or Republicans in general, even if it was not in their personal interest to do so. There is a reason (or reasons) for every decision anyone makes. It is not always a good one, of course, but there always is one. But you seem to be implying that both sides have equal validity, that it simply is a matter of perspective. If this is the case, I could not disagree with you more.
Perspective is a very fluid thing, shaped by a variety of forces: your parents, your family, your friends, your education, your job, the media, etc. For example, the Puritans long thought the staging of plays to be the work of the devil. To do so carried the risk of banishment or even worse. Shakespeare's work in particular was considered to antithetical to God's will and works of his that found their way into Puritan hands were burned. Of course, we now know Shakespeare to be one of, if not the, most accomplished writer of all time. So what's my point? Context counts. And not just a little, but for everything! Every decision we make depends on it. And this is the problem I have with the Bush administration in particular and the Republican Party in general. Make no mistake, the Democrats are guilty as well, they are often elitist and paternalistic. And there is no excuse for that. But Bush and the Republicans have raised the art of misleading and doling misinformation to unprecedented heights - the connection (or lack thereof) between Al Queda and Iraq or the flat out wrong information being disseminated at taxpayer expense about how someone can contract the Aids virus, for example. Or how about the slight oversight of failing to include the cost of the war in Iraq and Afganistan in the budget? There are many more examples too, of course. This is not to say that reasonable people can't disagree on the merits of a certain policy. But how can we talk about the budget if a sizeable piece of it is not included? If all the data are not shared with everyone, then it does not matter what I say, or you say, because we will be just talking across one another, not to each other. Or to put it another way, all things being equal, wouldn’t you agree that dealing with an arrogant elitist is bad, but a dealing with a liar is worse?
Politics is and has never been anything but a messy business. Money has far too much influence, power corrupts and the means to an end should count. The deck is stacked. Sometimes it is in the Democrats favor, but more often, of late, in the Republicans. Why? Because balanced information is no longer readily available. The major networks and most cable stations are controlled by only a small number of corporations. The same holds true, to a slightly lesser degree, with radio and newspapers. And corporations, by definition, do not work for the public good, but for their owners. It's a conflict of interest. How can you or I or anyone trust that the news the media deliver is as impartial and as complete as is humanly possible? We can't. I don't blame the Right for this. Hardly. History is replete with examples of the Left abusing their power. But I do blame them for making the problem worse. Treating people as consumers first, people second is what capitalism is all about. And which party represents the capitalists/corporations best? Yours, I’m afraid.Posted by tomkin on 2005-04-29 08:40:01

Jane,
You start off agreeing that Liberals are amazing in their condescension, but then refer to the cultural element that conservatives engage as 'faux populism' and 'a disease'. The conservatives are doing nothing more than treating the concerns of a majority of Americans. Period. They may not fully stmpatico; heck, they might be pandering with no ontention of followup AT ALL. But they take the concerns expressed by the majority and talk about them as if they were serious.
You aren't.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-04-29 02:57:33

Indeed Rick you are right. US liberals are amazing in their condescension and simple lack of capcity to engage with the people whose intersts they purportedly represent. But IMO, this arises from the simple fact, for at least two generations, there has not been any serious differences between the the various factions of the US political class on anything much at all. On that basis, leadership on issues such as the production and distribution of the wealth created by ordinary people, and on the shocking state of the US social safety net (practically non existent), is absolutely absent, since the faction of the ruling class that describes itself as 'liberal' in US terms has scarcely been affected by these developments, and in any case, is in no position to seriously challenge these developments since deep down, US liberals accept and endorse the broad arrangements, including the US role internationally, on which this situation rests socially politiaclly and economically.
As a result, the more conservative faction of the US political class has siezed its opportunity and filled the vacum created by the atrocious record of US liberalism in the last 40 years, and has filled it with cultural targets, and much else reminiscent of the faux populism of the 1930s in Europe. It would be bad enough if this development merely affected the US, but unfortunately, this disease has been exported to the rest of the world with dreadful consequences for the rest of us.
I wonder when the 'culturally enriched' faction of the US ruling class will finally wake up and understand that their disdain for the social and cultural consequences of the policies and programs so beloved of the technically savvy and the ethically challenged part of US libberalism, is widely if incoherently understood by wide sections of the US working poor, and the result is social and political consequences that will threaten everything US liberals say they hold dear.Posted by Jane Doe on 2005-04-28 19:21:14

Michael,
I also think you may be assuming a bit. While Republicans did have a visceral connection with conservatives, Democrats had a visceral connection with Liberals, too. To think that conservatives are emotion-based and liberals are reason-based and that's it is paternalistic and misleading.
The right wing has its scholars and, I hate to remind you, conservatie books sell more than liberal ones. And we're not talking about just the fluff, but also the heavily-footnoted tomes written by authors with a slew of letters after their name.
On the basis of the consumption of media (TV, radio, print, books, etc) it could be argued that conservatives are more well-read, more self-educated, etc. than liberals. And the exit polls were fascinating, as were follow-on polls. More college grads voted for Bush than Kerry. More people with advanced degrees voted for Kerry, but so did the high school drop outs (in about the same percentage). In a fascinating development, the University of Michigan polling center found out that while Kerry swung people with advanced degrees *as a whole* more people with "hard" advanced degrees (engineering, physics, etc) voted for Bush, while "soft" degree holders (Literature, history, etc) voted for Kerry, there are just more 'soft' degree holders!
Yet if someone were to say that conservatives are more logical while liberals are more emotional, would you take that as an insult? If yes, then be very, very careful of accusing conservatives of it.
Here's the real point, a point that we seem to be missing in an incresingly obvious way. Liberals are missing something. The evidence: "Working class people voted against us. Don't they know we have their best interests at heart? Why did they vote against their best interests?"
If it isn't *obvious* to you what is wrong with that chain of thought, I submit you suffer from ithe same condition.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-04-28 17:15:15

Michael,
Thanks. Yes, you nailed what I meant to express.
Joseph,
My friend, you *are* the point. So, when liberal PACs and special interests raise literally billions of dollars to elect pro-choice politicians, prevent pro-life judicial appointments, and raise legal challenges to *any* attempt to make abortion anything but on-demand, that *isn't* an attempt to impose beliefs and values on others?
Of course it is. Pro-choice activists believe they are "right" and strive to use legislation, the courts, the media, etc. to promote and (sometimes) force their views on others, even against their will. For 'the greater good'.
Why is it if a liberal wishes to force a devout Catholic to fund abortions with their taxes that is *not* fascism, but if the Catholic wishes to outlaw the same procedure, it is?
As for legitimate reasons, there are economists (indeed, and entire 'school' of economists) that advotace tax reduction to spur recovery from recession. If one of these PhD holders were to vote for Bush in the expert opinion that his plan would benefit the poor overall in a much more effective and lasting manner than anyone else had, is that 'good enough' for you? Or would he be imposing his beliefs on you?
I know a group of Objectivists who follow the principle that 'people are ends in and of themselves, never means' and, therefore, completely reject abortion. They all voted for Bush because of his pro-life stance. If you don't know any Objectivists, let me tell you - the only thing that exceeds their intense opposition to all forms of religion is their determination to be rational and objective in their thoughts and deeds. They claim that pro-choice activists are blinded by their emotions and aren't logical - care to debate them?
It seems to be that you associate 'conservative' with 'religious'. You do know that there are many agnostics and atheists that are conservative, tight? More importantly, I inferred that you don't believe that religious motives are 'legitimate' reasons for political or moral decisions. If my inference is correct, this is *another* fine example of liberal arrogance blinding people to why they lose elections.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-04-28 16:57:33

In the end, it all comes down to the media. By that I mean that the Left lacks the discipline to shape discourse and the DLC is infected by what controls the GOP and thus has little interest in being too different from the GOP. The DLC does little to rally support behind the candidates like Dean or Gore. Maybe that will change with Dean in the DNC. Who knows.
I once asked Bernie Sanders on Hartmann's show why the Left doesn't go out of its way to reshape debates and get the media on the right issues. His answer was that Progressives are always speaking out in DC. The media makes no use of what they say on a day to day basis.Posted by John on 2005-04-28 16:18:12

Hey Rick,
After reading your comment over three times I am not understanding just what fact is it that progressives are blind to? Is it that they "disagree with you for legitimate reasons?"
Pehaps if you could give an example or two of legitamate reasons that we are missing from the conservative position or that is being dismissed unfairly. As for me I agree that the conservative folks are people also...members of the same species but the ones who in this country compose the Christian right wing for instance are unlike me in that they desire to impose on others through the power of the state their religious beliefs and behavior. I disagree with that just as I disagree with the
Islamic right wing (Wahabi sect) and the Israeli right wing Likud party. In my opinion they are all dangerous people.
JosephPosted by Joseph on 2005-04-28 13:05:54

I think Rick has expanded, very effectively, a key illustration of the "unspoken notion" I raised earlier. Voting against what we regard as their "best interests," no matter who the "they" are or which direction their action might take, is more a statement of our intellectual paternalism and, yes, our abundant self-rightousness. Conservative, by whatever means or manipulations, got it right! They connected on an elemental visceral level, and we, as progressive "liberals," became the socio-cultural "elephant" of bad policy, intellectual arrogance, and all things effete or ineffectual. This is what they sold and what voters apparently bought. If we don't learn something here we will probably see a future in which progressive causes become increasingly marginal in American political life.Posted by Michael on 2005-04-28 12:41:58

Hmmmmmm. I hear the same things here I finds elsewhere - - progressives who are blind to a fact, a blindness that is costing them elections. Please bear with me a minute.
Why do people vote for things that are against their best interests? I have a multi-millionaire friend I;ve known since we shared ramen noodles in the Army. He voted against Bush even though his tax-cuts were in his own financial interests.
Why did he vote against his own interests? Well, according to him, he thought some things were more important. I'm sure no one here would disagree.
Why, then, cannot many *conservatives* vote against their own (most obvious) interests for a 'higher' purpose?
Progressives seem to have three main tacks on this issue. #1) - ignorance (as in this article); "If we just educate them on the facts, they will agree with us". #2) - irrationality; "they are ruled by fear/uncertainty/etc. If we just wean them from fear of terrorists, the little babies will grow up and be like us", and #3) - irredeemability; "They are evil/too stupid/religious/etc. and that makes them incapable of being enlightened like us".
Here is an idea that you should consider. They are people just like you. For some reason; their education, their experiences, their temperment, whatever; they reach different conclusions than you do. Assuming that telling them what convinces you/giving them therapy en masse/writing them off is a disservice to them and yourselves. Think about it, when conservatives say that progressives vote the way they do because they are "spoiled/commies/evil" you *know* that the complexities of your life and the choices you make are being dismissed. Why do you do it to others?
So think about it. What if conservatives disagree with you for *legitimate* reasons? If you think that is impossible, then you are, my friend, close-minded and think that you are above error.Posted by Rick Stump on 2005-04-28 11:43:06

I'm beginning to think these differences of opinion are really two sides of the same coin. Merlin, Michael and all are pointing out that there is a fear-mongering elephant in the room and until he is removed or subdued everything else is secondary. Those on the other side, including myself, argue that advocating truth in numbers can point out said elephant to the many who seem to be blind to it. So is it the chicken or the egg? Remove the elephant or recognize the elephant for what it is?
IMHO I think we can do both. Demanding accurate reporting of the numbers is not, "a classic failure of progressive analysis," or a red herring; it's a part of the solution towards realizing our shared larger goal - namely to get people to start channeling their fear into anger (well put Jane Doe). People should be angry and upset about what is happening to our country, even if it is difficult to believe. I'm amazed that so relatively few do. But, I'm not without hope. After all, this is hardly the worst crisis the US has ever faced. History has shown that tipping points usually are reached slowly. It would appear that this is what is happening now. We just have to keep up the pressure. And insisting on the truth, whether it be numbers or anything else, is always worth standing up for.Posted by tomkin on 2005-04-28 11:23:45

Hi Michael,
You said:
“Voters supported conservatives because Republicans bested Democrats in an unremitting class warfare that allowed conservatives to connect with voters at a primal level.”
I see it differently. Voters supported the neocons (not the conservatives) because they scared the crap out of the people. They felt that the Bushies would protect their frightened asses better than any Democrats would. I agree that class warfare is the point of the “moneyed” agenda. However, Bush would not be in office today had not Rove engineered the fear mongering campaign he did.
The public does believe it is voting in its own best interest. They did not want the terrorists to come over here and make “mushroom clouds” as Rice said was a distinct possibility. In other words “Circle the wagons, men, the bad guys are coming.” Now that the campaign of fear is not being used, the polls show that the public is showing a different “interest” to vote on. The “cool aid” tasted great going down when they felt they needed a strong protector. Now, the “poison” is hitting them and they are voting, via polls, in a way that is more in line with their real self interest as of today.
This past election had nothing to do with conservatives vs liberals. It had everything to do with radical neoconservatives following the Machiavellian dictum, “the ends justifies the means.” Lie by deception (compassionate conservative) Lie by omission (They leave out so much you could fill a library with the facts that are missing) and simply overt lying right in your face. Any means that will make the “ends” happen.
What are the “ends”? Read the PNAC report, Krauthammer, Ledeen and the other neocon “powers behind the throne.” They say exactly what they are doing and what they want to accomplish. What they want is “their agenda” which is surely not the conservative’s agenda
This is definitely not about liberal vs conservative or Republican vs Democrat. This is a concerted effort by a radical neocon group to claim and maintain power.Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-28 11:16:00

"They don't know the numbers" is a classic failure of progressive analysis. Voters supported conservatives because Republicans bested Democrats in an unremitting class warfare that allowed conservatives to connect with voters at a primal level. That visceral rejection of "liberalism" --even in the face of on-going policies and an ideology calculated to institutionalize the economic marginalization of working and middle class Americans--simply made knowing the numbers irrelevant. The sooner we as progressive awaken to that fact, and dismiss our characteristic reliance on the unspoken notion that knowledge backed by rationality leads to specific courses of political action, the better prepared we'll be to win in the midterm elections and beyond. The simple fact is that we, as voters, do vote our self-interests: but those interests are much too broad to be reduced to "know[ing] the numbers."Posted by Michael on 2005-04-28 09:38:04

Lou,
Welfare et al are administered by the state but most of the money comes from the fed in the form of block grants. state taxes are also collected for a portion of it but it's small. In state budgets, these costs are still small are are between 1 and 2%.Posted by John on 2005-04-28 08:17:18

I was looking at those numbers. I'm sure you're right about them as far as they go, but it seems to me that welfare is usually a state program, for example, Medicaide is funded half by states and half by the feds. Otherwise, Mississippi would not have the worst welfare program and the poorest people in the nation. I do realise that foreign aid is very low as far as committment goes, and that most of it is a scam to send money to dictators to be spent in the u.s. (or, at least it used to be that way), but couldn't the recent purchase of munitions to be sent to Iraq to arm their soldiers be called "foreign aid"? or maybe "foreign entrapment"?Posted by Lou Betty Rood on 2005-04-28 07:47:41

This is a wonderful exchange. I agree that the press should be more responsible with presenting numbers in a way that the regular reader has a chance to understand the numbers in context. I do not hold out much hope for that however since it seems to me that the vast majority of the press have proven to be timid or outright cowardly. We should try anyway.
There is one portion of the electorate however that will not be convinced by numbers, logic, appeals to reason or extended and patient conversation and that sector is the Christian right, often referred to as the "people of faith" by themselves and others. This faith they adhere to indicates that their beliefs are based on faith and that faith consists of believing in something for which there is no evidence. I do not mean to attack people who are religious. I have many friends who are religious, unlike myself. Most of them are activists in left and progressive organizations. We dont talk about religion with each other. I do belive however that it is time for those of us in the progressive movement who are religious especially Protestant, Catholic and Jews must take the lead in confronting what I consider a serious danger to this country.Posted by Joseph on 2005-04-27 17:06:02

Hi Jane,
Google non voters. There is a bunch of stuff there. Have you heard of the “League of Non-Voters?” They exist. Anti vote and anti democracy. I’ll have to read where these wing nuts are coming from.Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-27 16:36:28

Guys,
Understanding fear is the first step to moving towards hope. Anger can be stronger than fear. So my take is-How do you get people to move from fear to anger then hope and action? And my question about non voters hasn't been addressed. Who exactly are they? You see I understand about the rigged voting in broad terms in the US, but mass movements can overcome huge obstacles to inclusion. Look at the way masses of people have toppled ergimes every bit and much worse than the current one in the US. It isn't a technical problem-It's a political and social problem. So, who are the poeple who don't vote?Posted by Jane Doe on 2005-04-27 16:17:41

Thank for the comments merlin.
I understand what your saying. But my in-law has always been a staunch republican for her whole short little life. I think there are a lot of reachable people who simply don't know how out of whack the GOP's priorities really are.
Then again, there are those like you say who need a Daddy.
I'm not sure what the solution is here.Posted by john on 2005-04-27 15:43:17

Hi John,
You say:
“People don’t know how much goes to the poor and how goes to the rich and the defense budget.”
You are right. And they don’t want to know at this time! Your sister-in-law
resorted to “defensive” name calling, in order to stop the conversation I will bet. She did not want to hear anything that would destroy her Bush/Life jacket protecting her. (“Don’t tell me Bush is wrong...he’s not, he’s not! Go away!!!” Says the “scared little kid” portion of your sister-in-law. That is my fantasy feeling about it.) Our psychology is like a house of cards and any card you touch makes the whole structure wobble. If Bush is really what we progressives say he is, her protective “father figure” crumbles to the ground. Who will be there for her when the terrorists come???
That is why, in my view we need a nurturing parent to replace the stern, lying pseudo “father figure” we have in Bush. That is the alternative we need to offer, not numbers which, however right, don’t relieve the little kid in all of us about the monsters (terrorism) under our bed.Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-27 14:03:21

Hi tomkin,
You query:
“However, the accurate reporting of the numbers can be used to EXPOSE the pink elephant in the room, yes?”
Yes it will...when the public lets go of the” life jacket” called Bush, that Margaret points out. (EXPOSE is the operative word here. Beyond that, I say ‘no’ at this time.) His polls on terrorism are still quite high even in the face of all his other numbers going into the toilet. Notice the separation in poll numbers between Iraq and terrorism!.” They no longer fear Iraq. The people still fear terrorism! They are waiting for the next big shoe to drop.
We need to counteract that fear, not talk numbers. Like calming a frightened child by showing him that there is no monster in the closet. We need a STRONG nurturing compassionate Parent to take charge. One who understands the fear that the American public is feeling. Until that person happens this country will struggle in the grip of an unreal fear and ignore all the “right numbers.”
Back to the article...
Baker goes wrong here for instance:
From the article:
“Essentially, this is just a question of good journalism.”
“In short, a simple, and winnable, agenda item for progressives should be to convince media outlets to practice good journalism when they cover national or state budgets. All but the most closed-minded editors and producers should be open to the argument that the goal of budget reporting is to convey information.”
This sounds like he is reading from a civics book in high school.
A “question of good journalism?” Good grief
There is no time for this liaise faire, “it just takes time approach.” It is pure fantasy to believe that the answer is to “...convince media outlets to practice good journalism...”
And here:
““Haggling over the way in which budget numbers are reported may seem like a rather indirect approach...”
Sheesh...The house is burning and he talks about being indirect!Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-27 13:43:53

Regardless of how many of view the importance of the substance of Dean Baker's article, the facts are worth mention.
I had a dispute with my conservative sister-in-law back in the Fall. When I rolled my eyes at her cries of welfare burdens on her and other hard working people and pointed out that it all amounts to pennies out of her paycheck, she snapped and came just short of calling me a dillusional liberal liar. IT DOES NEED DISCUSSION. see www.pipa.org and look at their recent study of budget priorties. It all echoes the same irony. People don't know how much goes to the poor and how goes to the rich and the defense budget.Posted by John on 2005-04-27 13:18:49

Hi Merlin,
You wrote, "My view from to talking to a lot of different people is that they don’t WANT to see the scam." I agree. However, the accurate reporting of the numbers can be used to EXPOSE the pink elephant in the room, yes? Take Social Security for example. The numbers Bush is using to tout switching to private accounts don't add up and he's started to get called on it. Which, in turn, sparked a lot more people to look at his misleading numbers. And now we see support for his plan falling, despite his 2-month barnstorming efforts.Posted by tomkin on 2005-04-27 12:07:06

I agree with you, Merlin. People don't want to see that this Administration is not only corrupt, which is nothing new for any admin. of any party, but that they are so scared, they cannot let go of that lifejacket they feel Bush is. They are unwilling to look at other facts because that leaves them even more vulnerable. Americans just aren't used to feeling that way.Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-27 11:34:20

Hi tomkin,
You queried:
“Isn't insisting on the accurate reporting of data, part of the, "continued onslaught of this quasi fascist neocon administration on all fronts?"
There are many areas that need exposing and this is one of them. So is the apparent (until factually proven) voting fraud and the scamming of the administration regarding the “reasons” justifying the quagmire that is Iraq. SS, taxes... the list is long. Take SS for instance. The real reason, stated by the ideologes behind this administration (Charles Krauthammer, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol et al) is to destroy the social safety net and to destroy the Democratic party. Discussing the “numbers” about private accounts, the pros and cons is a red herring. As real as those numbers are they mask the real intent. If the neocon agenda is successful, there will be no “numbers” to discuss!
Thank goodness there are people who are doing this kind of work now, and have been for years. They GET it! David Corn at the Nation, Black Box Voting, etc., even the authors of books like John Dean’s “Worse Than Watergate” and “Bush on the Couch” by Justin Frank.
My point is that having a “dialog” between all of us in order to “convince” people that one set of numbers is better than another misses the point. You don’t worry about how you look (brush your hair, put on clothes) when your house is on fire and you have to get out. First get out and then cover yourself up. It is, in my view, a matter of priority. The focus should be on exposing the scam; the emotional crookedness going on. The fear mongering. When people understand what is being done to them by a con man they say, “Hey!!! that’s bullshit!” and REALLY look at the numbers. Its like the people are at a magic show and believing that the magician is really sawing the woman in half. They really want to believe that he is, and when he “restores” her to one piece they say “Isn’t that amazing!”
My view from to talking to a lot of different people is that they don’t WANT to see the scam. They say things like, “ The President would never lie or cheat.” (really, I’ve heard this more than once.) Or “This is all just politics. The pendulum swings back and forth.” “All politicians are the same. Democrats do that too.” The message is one of apathy or a refusal to look with open eyes and use emotional critical thinking.
I’m all for dialog and nuance. This is just not the time for those things. Lets put out the fire, and then we will talk and try and convince the American public that raising the miles per gallon issue is important. After this travesty of “leadership” is history, the real Republicans and Democrats can debate the best way to live in our country.Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-27 11:19:33

Merlin,
Isn't insisting on the accurate reporting of data, part of the, "continued onslaught of this quasi fascist neocon administration on all fronts?"
Fear can be a powerful inducement to do things you would not normally do or support things you normally would not support. And sure, Bush, Rove, et al use and manipulate fear to get their point of view heard and believed (as do Democrats, btw). But I don't see how this invalidates the author's conclusion - “For an important subset of these policies, the answer is simple: They don’t know the numbers.” Many people don't know the numbers. Shouldn't they?Posted by tomkin on 2005-04-27 09:33:18

To Jane,
Until we rid the nation of computerized paperless voting machines, it won't matter waht efforts are made to reach the non-voters. In 2000, in Florida, the voter rolls were purged of 50,000 to 80,000 supposed felons, most of them black, and most of them incorrectly. In 2004, in Ohio, 90,000 votes were never counted at all, and people in democratic districts stood in the rain for 10 hours in some areas to cast their votes. No such delays in the republican districts. Plenty of malfunctions reported with the voting machines, and all of them favorable to the republicans. Voter turnout in 2004 was bigger than ever, but if the count is rigged, it just won't matter. And of course the Kerry campaign walked away from their promise to count every vote, just as the Gore campaign failed to demand a statewide recount in 2000, instead concentrating on just a few counties. Forget an outreach to the apathetic, they have good reason to be. What we should be working on is getting rid of these machines.Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on 2005-04-26 22:20:13

Do any of you guys have the breakdown on the people who didn't vote in the last US Election? Were they working poor, unemployed? What states did they come from? What efforts are being made to reach out to those people and figure out how to get 10% of them to the Polls. I am interested in the low turnouts and I am interested in finding out just which folks don't vote in the US.Posted by Jane Doe on 2005-04-26 14:43:07

From the article:
“Since last autumn’s Republican victory, progressives have engaged in considerable soul searching.”
This is an assumption that I don’t agree with at all. Centrist right Dems are not truly progressives in my view. The leadership by the DLC does not represent progressive thinking. Progressives aren’t soul searching at all. They know who they are and what they want. Perhaps those discontented Lieberman Dems are wringing their hands, and if so, they should be.
Continuing from the article:
The most basic question has been: Why do so many people support conservative policies that hurt them?
This question, that is often bandied about in the MSM, is a moot question. It is a straw man, in my view, that justifies the writer in pushing his view that if we just get the facts out to the people they will see the light. This is simply not so in this current climate of neocon fear mongering. As we should have learned from the whole 9/11 affair, (don’t get exercised, I’m talking about the “use” of that incident not the tragedy itself) when the public is afraid for their safety, that is the only issue that they see. Everything else is off the screen. Look at current polls. No orange alerts, etc. and the issues are being seen and reacted to as they should be, in my view. In all the polls the public is going against the Bush agenda except terrorism, (the safety issue.)
Rove had it right!!! Scare the American public and we can ram through anything we want. When the public feels safe, we can have a real dialog with “numbers” and all the nuances that debate involve.
Further from the article:
“For an important subset of these policies, the answer is simple: They don’t know the numbers.”
And this conclusion, by Baker, being based on naive assumptions and not being at all psychologically aware is dead wrong.
We need to hold the line against the continued onslaught of this quasi fascist neocon administration on all fronts. We can make no real progress until they are driven from office. And that is our real job, in my view, to drive them from office. Then perhaps the true conservative Republicans can reclaim their party and real dialog can return to the American public. To believe, as Baker does that we just have to get the numbers out is a fantasy. He would fiddle as the United States burns.
Look at the psychological reality here folks and don’t be misled by straw men and red herrings.Posted by Merlin on 2005-04-26 13:06:41

Margaret,
Go to www.johnkerry.com or type his name into yahoo.com.Plenty of sites both pro and con.Posted by wwoods on 2005-04-26 09:30:45

wwoods,
I responded in kind with you on another article (the one w/Pablo), and I asked for the link for the Kerry records. You probably haven't been back there. Could you please give the info to me?
Thanks.Posted by Margaret on 2005-04-26 08:00:26

It's good someone is bringing this up,yet I'm amazed we even have to ask these questions.
The republicans and the rest of the far-right have done as well as they have through propaganda which feeds into the frustration of the middle-class.As well they have managed to pervert the idea of the work ethic.A person isn't poor because of circumstance,i.e. taking his job and moving it overseas and leaving no other employment opportunities in his region,he's poor because he lazy."Poor people are defective,haven't you heard?Why should we help
those lazy bums?".That's what's coming from the right.Meanwhile,corporate welfare is three times what we spend on social welfare.That's right,free money to rich people in the hope they'll use it productively.
Unfortunately,most Americans are not made aware,with good reason.Republicans know their system of propaganda will disintegrate if brought to light ,so keep it,and us,in the dark.
The Big Lie:help us and you'll get rich too.The core of every con game.Posted by wwoods on 2005-04-26 06:46:52